5 ms·

The article says, "Much of that cohort was able to work from home, which gave parents more time and flexibility to deal with the life changes and demands that

The article says, "Much of that cohort was able to work from home, which gave parents more time and flexibility to deal with the life changes and demands that pregnancy and a new baby bring." I guess it's indelicate to say that when a man and woman are both stuck at home, more babies will be conceived. People who were unattached during the lockdown were probably less likely to find a mate, though.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
> I guess it's indelicate to say that when a man and woman are both stuck at home, more babies will be conceived. It would be inaccurate to assume an increase in frequency of sex will lead to more babies, in the age of access to very effective birth control. Many (most I assume?) choose when to have or try to have children.
- alocasia-1 4y ago
  Roughly half of pregnancies in the US are unplanned, and with abortion and contraceptive access being removed or severely limited in many states, that situation is only going to get worse.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    The only US source for data I could find was from 2011: https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/unintendedpregnancy/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/uninten... > In 2008, women reported that more than half of all pregnancies (51%) were unintended. By 2011, the percentage of unintended pregnancies declined to 45%. That is an improvement, but some groups still tend to have higher rates of unintended pregnancy. For example, 75% of pregnancies were unintended among teens aged 15 to 19 years. I imagine this has continued to trend downwards since 2011, especially amongst women who had the option of remote work (more educated, more lucrative careers, higher degree of financial freedom, less religious, etc).
    - alocasia-1 4y ago
      I doubt that downward trend has continued (bet it's at least slowed) for the general population, I can't imagine sex ed has gotten any better nationwide. But I don't have any newer sources at hand either.
      - lotsofpulp 4y ago
        The Affordable Care Act providing free birth control did not even kick in until 2011. Between that, increased access to healthcare and doctors in general due to ACA, and access to more information due to proliferation of internet and smartphones, I would guess more women opted into birth control over the past decade.
    - smeej 4y ago
      This depends a lot on the phrasing of the question, because there can be a big difference between "unplanned" and "undesired." When people actively want not to have children, they tend to be fastidious about using their contraceptives as intended, but they're less careful when they are less opposed to the idea. Even if someone gets pregnant earlier than they had actually "planned," many are quickly delighted after the first bout of surprise and the slight stress of moving up the related plans, though this is not always captured in surveys.
      - bombcar 4y ago
        Yeah, the questions have to be carefully designed to avoid questioner's bias, and to get at the root of what you're trying to determine. There's a vast range from "we cannot have children at all" to "we are intentionally doing every single thing possible to conceive" and many people end up in the "eh if it happens it happens" middle somewhere.
        lotsofpulp 4y ago
        Yes, but my point was that the set of 25 year old couples who ended up working from home and having sex more often because of it probably will not end up with a baby because they will not have forgone birth control. Or a couple who has already had their desired amount of kids would not end up with more kids even though they are having more sex due to them using birth control. Whereas a 30 to 35 year old couple who was already planning on babies in the next couple years would have opted out of birth control to take advantage of the increased time being spent at home.
  - yucky 4y ago
    >contraceptive access being removed or severely limited in many states Not being combative but as someone who isn't up to snuff on this subject can you provide some examples? I haven't seen examples of this so I'd like to read more.
    - alocasia-1 4y ago
      Sure, In 2020 there was a SCOTUS decision allowing employers to refuse insurance coverage for contraception for their employees for "religious or moral" reasons, aka "we don't like it". https://www.npr.org/2020/07/08/889112788/the-supreme-court-allows-employers-to-opt-out-of-contraception-coverage https://www.npr.org/2020/07/08/889112788/the-supreme-court-a... At least twelve states have laws allowing institutions and healthcare professionals to simply refuse to provide contraception if they want. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/refusing-provide-health-services https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/refusing-pro... Meanwhile, the push to classify some methods (morning-after pill & IUDs), which may prevent fertilized eggs from implanting, as "abortifacients" and therefore subject to the abortion bans now active in many states, has been going on for years but is picking up steam. Missouri's abortion ban in particular, now active, defines pregnancy as a fertilized egg, implanted or not.
      - yucky 4y ago
        So those aren't examples of contraceptive access being removed, they're examples of the Supreme Court ruling that government can not force private insurers to cover specific things if they don't want. It seems like the solution to that would be to pick a different insurance plan (Obamacare marketplace has no plans that restrict contraceptive coverage) or go through one of the hundreds of organizations like Planned Parenthood. Since any employee is free to pick an Obamacare plan by law, does that not ensure contraceptive coverage is always available?
- luckylion 4y ago
  > Many (most I assume?) choose when to have or try to have children. Might sound a bit too cynical for this site, but plenty of people decided to get a dog in 2020. Why shouldn't they choose to have a baby for the same reasons?
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    I did not opine on whether or not people should have had a baby or for what reasons.
    - luckylion 4y ago
      Sorry, I didn't mean to say that you had, rather I was suggesting that they did choose to have a baby because it filled a void that was created by lockdowns (and that others filled by getting a dog).
  - glomgril 4y ago
    Not sure why so many people balk at the comparison of having a dog versus having a kid. You don't need some deep philosophical reason for either: humans have lived alongside dogs for thousands of years, and humans don't need a justification to reproduce any more than a dog would. We're animals, we make babies.
  - alocasia-1 4y ago
    I was wondering something similar - could it have been that in the first half of 2020 people put off having a kid and then after lockdowns were lifted, made up for lost time? For a little more cynicism, that fits with their finding that the "boom" was most pronounced for first-time parents, aka the ones that weren't stuck home with their kids...
russdill 4y ago
It reads more as if both parents are at home, being able to take care of another newborn/infant/toddler becomes more manageable.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

> I guess it's indelicate to say that when a man and woman are both stuck at home, more babies will be conceived. It would be inaccurate to assume an increase in frequency of sex will lead to more babies, in the age of access to very effective birth control. Many (most I assume?) choose when to have or try to have children.

alocasia-1 4y ago
Roughly half of pregnancies in the US are unplanned, and with abortion and contraceptive access being removed or severely limited in many states, that situation is only going to get worse.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  The only US source for data I could find was from 2011: https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/unintendedpregnancy/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/uninten... > In 2008, women reported that more than half of all pregnancies (51%) were unintended. By 2011, the percentage of unintended pregnancies declined to 45%. That is an improvement, but some groups still tend to have higher rates of unintended pregnancy. For example, 75% of pregnancies were unintended among teens aged 15 to 19 years. I imagine this has continued to trend downwards since 2011, especially amongst women who had the option of remote work (more educated, more lucrative careers, higher degree of financial freedom, less religious, etc).
  - alocasia-1 4y ago
    I doubt that downward trend has continued (bet it's at least slowed) for the general population, I can't imagine sex ed has gotten any better nationwide. But I don't have any newer sources at hand either.
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      The Affordable Care Act providing free birth control did not even kick in until 2011. Between that, increased access to healthcare and doctors in general due to ACA, and access to more information due to proliferation of internet and smartphones, I would guess more women opted into birth control over the past decade.
  - smeej 4y ago
    This depends a lot on the phrasing of the question, because there can be a big difference between "unplanned" and "undesired." When people actively want not to have children, they tend to be fastidious about using their contraceptives as intended, but they're less careful when they are less opposed to the idea. Even if someone gets pregnant earlier than they had actually "planned," many are quickly delighted after the first bout of surprise and the slight stress of moving up the related plans, though this is not always captured in surveys.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      Yeah, the questions have to be carefully designed to avoid questioner's bias, and to get at the root of what you're trying to determine. There's a vast range from "we cannot have children at all" to "we are intentionally doing every single thing possible to conceive" and many people end up in the "eh if it happens it happens" middle somewhere.
      - lotsofpulp 4y ago
        Yes, but my point was that the set of 25 year old couples who ended up working from home and having sex more often because of it probably will not end up with a baby because they will not have forgone birth control. Or a couple who has already had their desired amount of kids would not end up with more kids even though they are having more sex due to them using birth control. Whereas a 30 to 35 year old couple who was already planning on babies in the next couple years would have opted out of birth control to take advantage of the increased time being spent at home.
- yucky 4y ago
  >contraceptive access being removed or severely limited in many states Not being combative but as someone who isn't up to snuff on this subject can you provide some examples? I haven't seen examples of this so I'd like to read more.
  - alocasia-1 4y ago
    Sure, In 2020 there was a SCOTUS decision allowing employers to refuse insurance coverage for contraception for their employees for "religious or moral" reasons, aka "we don't like it". https://www.npr.org/2020/07/08/889112788/the-supreme-court-allows-employers-to-opt-out-of-contraception-coverage https://www.npr.org/2020/07/08/889112788/the-supreme-court-a... At least twelve states have laws allowing institutions and healthcare professionals to simply refuse to provide contraception if they want. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/refusing-provide-health-services https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/refusing-pro... Meanwhile, the push to classify some methods (morning-after pill & IUDs), which may prevent fertilized eggs from implanting, as "abortifacients" and therefore subject to the abortion bans now active in many states, has been going on for years but is picking up steam. Missouri's abortion ban in particular, now active, defines pregnancy as a fertilized egg, implanted or not.
    - yucky 4y ago
      So those aren't examples of contraceptive access being removed, they're examples of the Supreme Court ruling that government can not force private insurers to cover specific things if they don't want. It seems like the solution to that would be to pick a different insurance plan (Obamacare marketplace has no plans that restrict contraceptive coverage) or go through one of the hundreds of organizations like Planned Parenthood. Since any employee is free to pick an Obamacare plan by law, does that not ensure contraceptive coverage is always available?
luckylion 4y ago
> Many (most I assume?) choose when to have or try to have children. Might sound a bit too cynical for this site, but plenty of people decided to get a dog in 2020. Why shouldn't they choose to have a baby for the same reasons?
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  I did not opine on whether or not people should have had a baby or for what reasons.
  - luckylion 4y ago
    Sorry, I didn't mean to say that you had, rather I was suggesting that they did choose to have a baby because it filled a void that was created by lockdowns (and that others filled by getting a dog).
- glomgril 4y ago
  Not sure why so many people balk at the comparison of having a dog versus having a kid. You don't need some deep philosophical reason for either: humans have lived alongside dogs for thousands of years, and humans don't need a justification to reproduce any more than a dog would. We're animals, we make babies.
- alocasia-1 4y ago
  I was wondering something similar - could it have been that in the first half of 2020 people put off having a kid and then after lockdowns were lifted, made up for lost time? For a little more cynicism, that fits with their finding that the "boom" was most pronounced for first-time parents, aka the ones that weren't stuck home with their kids...

russdill 4y ago

It reads more as if both parents are at home, being able to take care of another newborn/infant/toddler becomes more manageable.